Table of Contents

7 OVERVIEW

8 INTRODUCTION
10 Bibliography

11 TOP-LEVEL DEAL TRENDS ACROSS THERAPY AREAS
11 Datamonitor Healthcare insights and recommendations
12 Oncology deal-making volume has especially intensified in recent years
14 Up-front and total deal value averages have generally grown
17 Bibliography

18 DIABETES DEAL-MAKING: INNOVATION IN DISEASE MANAGEMENT
18 Datamonitor Healthcare insights and recommendations
18 Major deal-making events have changed the landscape
21 Diabetes deal-making is focused at the later stages of drug development
22 Top pharma companies are innovating through disease management and digital health
24 Future deals may focus on patient stratification
25 Few, but significant, diabetes bolt-on acquisitions have taken place
26 Bibliography

28 NEUROLOGY AND PAIN DEAL-MAKING: REALIZING VALUE THROUGH OUT-LICENSING
28 Datamonitor Healthcare insights and recommendations
28 Neuroscience is now a “therapeutic whitespace”
30 Pain and Alzheimer’s disease remain big focus areas in neurology deal-making
38 Out-licensing in neurology can bring about a lot of value
40 Top 20 pharma is innovating around genome sequencing and biomarker discovery
41 Bolt-on acquisitions have brought in eventual successes and failures
42 Bibliography

44 AUTOIMMUNE DISEASE DEAL-MAKING: EXPANDING DRUG CLASSES TO COMPETE WITH STANDARD OF CARE
44 Datamonitor Healthcare insights and recommendations
44 Deals market by volume is comparatively smaller, but growing
47 Deal-makers are evaluating novel autoimmune targets and drug classes through partnerships and acquisitions
49 Existing leaders in the market look to deal-making to maintain leadership
50 In-licensing is not concentrated on any one phase
51 Autoimmune disease-focused acquisitions are few in number
52 Bibliography

53 ONCOLOGY DEAL-MAKING: CONVERGENCE OF TARGETED THERAPIES AND IMMUNO-ONCOLOGY
53 Datamonitor Healthcare insights and recommendations
53 Future key drivers in oncology care are reflected in deal-making
54 Themes of precision medicine and immuno-oncology are reflected in key bolt-on acquisitions
58 Dramatic growth seen in oncology partnership deal volume
65 Top 20 pharma collaborations with big data companies likely to continue
66 Bibliography

69 IMPACT OF EXTERNALIZATION ON REVENUE
69 Datamonitor Healthcare insights and recommendations
69 Revenue depends on externalized products
71 In diabetes, internal R&D is driving revenue rather than externalization

74 APPENDIX

74 Scope
74 Methodology
76 Bibliography

LIST OF FIGURES
12 Figure 1: Aggregate deal volume by therapy area, 2008–17
13 Figure 2: Deal-making volume by therapy area, 2008–12 versus 2013–17
14 Figure 3: Annual deal-making volume by therapy area, 2008–17
15 Figure 4: Average up-front payments by therapy area, 2008–12 versus 2013–17
16 Figure 5: Average total deal values by therapy area, 2008–12 versus 2013–17
17 Figure 6: Average proportion of total deal value paid up front by therapy area, 2008–17
19 Figure 7: Timeline of major deals in the diabetes market, 2008–17
20 Figure 8: Diabetes in-licensing and out-licensing volume, 2008–12 versus 2013–17
21 Figure 9: Average deal value metrics in diabetes in-licensing, 2008–12 versus 2013–17
22 Figure 10: Demand for marketed diabetes drugs in deal-making is growing, 2008–17
23 Figure 11: Sanofi leads the most active in-licensers in diabetes deal-making, 2008–17
24 Figure 12: Select deal-making around new mechanisms in diabetes and new approaches with standard of care
25 Figure 13: Diabetes deal-making may center on stratifying patients for more targeted treatment
26 Figure 14: Select key bolt-on acquisitions in diabetes, 2008–17
29 Figure 15: Neurology in-licensing deals by phase, 2008–12 versus 2013–17
30 Figure 16: Average deal value metrics in neurology in-licensing, 2008–12 versus 2013–17
31 Figure 17: Neurology and pain deal volume, 2008–17
32 Figure 18: Neurology deal-making by indication, 2008–17
33 Figure 19: US pain market sales, by drug type, 2015–20
34 Figure 20: Pain deal-making volume, by pain type, 2008–17
35 Figure 21: Volume of neuropathic pain deals decreases, 2008–12 versus 2013–17
36 Figure 22: Migraine market is poised for growth, and is attractive to deal-makers
38 Figure 23: Small proportion of rare CNS disease deal-making, 2008–17
39 Figure 24: In-licensing versus out-licensing in neurology, 2008–17
40 Figure 25: Most active neurology out-licensers, 2008–17
42 Figure 26: Select key bolt-on acquisitions in neurology and pain, 2008–17
45 Figure 27: Autoimmune disease in-licensing and out-licensing volume, 2008–12 versus 2013–17
46 Figure 28: Average deal value metrics in autoimmune disease in-licensing, 2008–12 versus 2013–17
47 Figure 29: Autoimmune disease deal-making by indication, 2008–17
50 Figure 30: Top in-licensers in autoimmune disease deal-making, 2008–17
51 Figure 31: Autoimmune disease in-licensing deals by phase, 2008–12 versus 2013–17
52 Figure 32: Select key bolt-on acquisitions in autoimmune disease, 2008–17
54 Figure 33: Future key drivers in oncology care are reflected in deal-making
55 Figure 34: Oncology bolt-on acquisition volume and value, 2008–12 versus 2013–17
56 Figure 35: Roche leads the top 20 pharma peer set in oncology bolt-on acquisition volume, 2008–17
59 Figure 36: Oncology in-licensing volume, 2008–17
60 Figure 37: Oncology in-licensing average values, 2008–17
61 Figure 38: Precision medicine and immuno-oncology are important components of oncology partnerships, 2008–12 versus 2013–17
62 Figure 39: Oncology in-licensing volume by phase at deal signing, 2008–12 versus 2013–17
63 Figure 40: Top in-licensers in oncology deal-making, 2008–17
64 Figure 41: Oncology deals by indication, 2008–17
70 Figure 42: External versus internal product revenue for top 20 pharma peer set: all therapy areas, 2002–26
71 Figure 43: Average per-drug revenue is higher for externalized products, 2002–26
72 Figure 44: Diabetes therapies: external versus internal product revenue for top 20 pharma peer set, 2002–26
73 Figure 45: Diabetes therapies: higher average per-drug revenue for internally developed products, 2002–26

LIST OF TABLES
9 Table 1: The top 20 pharmaceutical company peer set
10 Table 2: Key therapy areas in deal-making
37 Table 3: Select ongoing Alzheimer’s disease deals involving top 20 pharma companies, 2008–17
48 Table 4: Novel targets and product classes in autoimmune disease deal-making, 2008–17
57 Table 5: Select key oncology acquisitions focused on immuno-oncology and precision medicine, 2008–17
66 Table 6: Select recent collaborations between top 20 pharma and big data companies in oncology
75 Table 7: The top 20 pharmaceutical company peer set
76 Table 8: Key therapy areas in deal-making